Dear Rabbi Kornfeld,
I understand that the principle of gematria is learnt from the "possuk" Efrayim U' mnashe K'reuven V'shimmon". If this is the case, you will discover that the 2 words 'Efrayim Mnashe= 726 & the words Reuven Shimmon = 725 (See Ta'amei Minhagim p. 315 in the footnote citing Bnai Yisaschar, Kislev, in the name of Mekubalim)
My question is, if you learn the principle from a source, where there is ALREADY a difference of one, WHY do we have to resort to a device of "IM HAKOLLEL" to overcome gematrias which are short of one.
Awaiting your valued opinion,
Stuart Plaskow
To relate to your question literally, perhaps one can invoke the GEMARA in Berachos 3a which points out the difference between "ka'Chatzos" (approximately Chatzos) and "ba'Chatzos" (exactly Chatzos). If the verse here says " ki Re'uven v'Shimon," it means that Ephraim and Menashe are almost like Re'uven and Shimon. Thus, in order for two words to be exactly alike, one would think that they must add up exactly.
(See however TAZ to YD 242:1, who argues with the PERISHAH there and asserts that the Kaf ha'Dimyon -- such as the Kaf in ki'Re'uven -- indeed implies an exact comparison of two items, unlike the Kaf of ka'Chatzos.)
However, in truth I am not familiar with any source that shows "the principle of Gematria" is learned from the verse you quote. (The BNAI YISASCHAR you cited brings it as a source for "Im ha'Kollel.") To the best of my knowledge, that Gematria is first mentioned in the Ba'alei ha'Tosfos on that verse; it is not cited anywhere in the Midrash. In fact, the Midrash (32 MIDOS OF REBBI YOSI HA'GELILI, #29) cites a different source for the principle of Gematria (Eliezer = 318, see RASHI to Bereishis 14:14 based on the GEMARA in Nedarim 32a), which is indeed an exact Gematria.
I am also not familiar with any Talmudic or Midrashic source that mentions the idea of "Im ha'Kolel" explicitly (by that title or by any other title). As far as I am aware, the source that a Gematria may be off by one is the LEKET YOSHER (in his introduction) and the SHIBOLEI HA'LEKET (#212), as quoted by the BIRCHAS PERETZ (in his introduction to the Parpera'os section). The above-mentioned Rishonim do not call such a Gematria "Im ha'Kolel," by the way, but simply prove that it is considered a valid Gematria, just like any other Gematria.
I hope this makes things clearer for you.
Best wishes, and continue to keep in touch,
Mordecai Kornfeld
I once heard from Rav Dovid Cohen shlit"a of Khal Gvul Yaavetz of Flatbush a mekor for "Im Hakolel".
Rashi brings down the chazal in parshas Voeschanan that Hash-m was makdim the golus with the Churban of the first Beis Hamikdash after the Bnei Yisroel were in Eretz Yisroel for 850 years so that they would not fulfill the gematria of V'noshantem which is 852. Why did Hash-m not allow the Bnei Yisroel to stay another year for a total of 851 years? Because Im Hakolel this would be the equivalent of Vnoshantem.
Avigdor Feintuch
I always thought the origin of gematria was the Gemara's limud of stam nezirus sheloshim yom, because kadosh yihyeh is begematria 30. Also the source for learning halacha from gematria.
Gershon
1. The Leket Yosher we cited indeed brings that as his source for allowing a Gematria to be off by one.
2. We put the Daf on which that Limud appears into the subject line for this reason. It indeed shows that Gematria is sometimes used by the Gemara to derive a Halachah.
However, the Midrash we were citing is looking for a source for the Gemara itself. That is, what hint can be found in the Torah to show that Gematria is a valid means of Drasha. The Midrash cites the sources we mentioned for allowing Gematria to be used as a Drasha in the first place.
M. Kornfeld